User login
Navigation
Reporters' Notebooks
- Don Henry Ford Jr.
- Marc Van Riper
- Jessica Davies
- Kristin Bricker
- Brenda Norrell
- Andrew Stelzer
- Christopher Fee
- Maggie Von Vogt
- Al Giordano
- Bill Conroy
- Allan Brauer
- Okke Ornstein
- Miguel Contreras
- Charlie Hardy
- RJ Maccani
- John Viescas
- Gregory Berger
- Katie Halper
- Benjamin Melançon
- John Slade
- Dennes Longoria
- Diana Barahona
- Romina Trincheri
- Erich Moncada
- Jay J. Johnson-Castro Sr.
- Narco News
- Mark Smith
- Daniel Fleming
- Nick Cooper
- Dan Feder
- Stephen Peacock
- Laura del Castillo
- Charles Mostoller
- Jeb Sprague
- David B. Briones
- Aaron Shuman
- Nancy Davies
- John Bruning
- Marcos Meconi
- Keith Yearman
- Jonathan Mills
- Cindy Lou Wilmore
- Sean Donahue
- Juan Trujillo
- Jeff Simpson
- Paul Henry
- George Salzman
- Christopher Whalen
- Simon Fitzgerald
- Wim Dankbaar
- Charles Faris
- Diego Mantilla
- Shawn O'Bryant
- Christopher Hyde
- David Keating
- Rich Gibson
- Anthony Fenton
- Steve Young
- Richard Pilkington
- Tatiana Ovando
- Jeremy Gordon
- Ricardo Sala
- Randall White
- Luis Gomez
- Teofilo Ballve
- Ben Masel
- Walt Lyford
- Jeremy Bigwood
- John F. Eden
- Irene Roca Ortiz
- Ron Smith
- Kevin Skerrett
- Jean Friedsky
- Gissel Gonzales
- María Eugenia Flores Castro
- José Mirtenbaum
- Manuela Aldabe
- Kevin Gallagher
- Bill Weaver
- Justin Delacour
- Claudia Espinoza
- Reber Boult
- Colleen Glynn
- Mike DAllaire
- Jennifer Whitney
- Stan Gotlieb
- Alex Satanovsky
- Marcel Miranda
- Nate Johnson
- Richard Eramian
- Pablo Mamani
- Paul Silvester
- Franz J.T. Lee
- Chris Herz
- Andrei Tudor
- Nora Callahan
- Gurujiwan Khalsa
- Julia Steinberger
- Fabio Mesquita
- Yasmin Khan
- Pablo Francischelli
- Baylen Linnekin
- Erik Siegrist
- Natalia Viana
- Amber Howard
- Linda Langness
- Kevin Okabe
- Sarah de Haro


Mathematical anomalies don't prove anything
Submitted July 3, 2006 - 5:02 pm by Jules SiegelI know that this seems improbable, but there is a science of numerical forensics that deals with repetitive patterns in collected numbers. If they don't have these patterns, then suspicion is raised that the figures have been tampered with, because the people who did it will tend to cover their tracks by making the results look random.
It's really a fascinating area of study, but the results are often counter-intutive. Look into Benford's Law for an example of what I'm talking about. Everyone knew the race was going to be tight. It's annoying that it turned out this tight, but I don't think that's much evidence of fraud. Don't you think that anyone trying to mess with the results would have tried for a larger margin?
The election resulted in a statistical tie. That's not all that unusual an outcome. The only way to settle the doubts would be to hold a run-off, I guess. Meanwhile, people are clutching at wisps. Al is correct in one point -- 64% did not vote for Calderón. One has to ask whether the split in what was once the PRI brought Mexico democracy or a new kind of minority rule.